Tuesday, October 17, 2017

The Limits of Gullibility

The derogatory term “conspiracy theory” automatically gets thrown at anyone with the temerity to question the veracity of stories broadcast by American mainstream media sources: refuse to believe what they are feeding you, and you are automatically branded a “conspiracy theorist.” But what if you refuse to theorize, to impugn, to ascribe, to insinuate or to offer alternative versions, and simply point out that what is being alleged to be true simply isn’t the least bit likely? Of course, anything is possible; for example, it is possible that every single person who reads this article will instantly get hiccoughs. But it just isn’t the least bit likely. If someone were to tell you that everyone who read this article did in fact come down with a case of hiccoughs, I believe that you would be perfectly justified to say “that’s just too unlikely to be true” and leave it at that, without being scorned as a “conspiracy theorist” and without being goaded into providing some sort of alternative account because you are under no obligation to make sense out of anyone else’s nonsense.

The recent massacre in Las Vegas provides a good testing ground for this approach.
There are lots of bizarre details in the official account that cry out for careful analysis, but we won’t bother doing any of—because it’s not our job. Instead, we’ll simply look at eyewitness testimony and ask ourselves a simple question: How likely is it that all these people came up with what they said on their own?

Here is a list of links to videos of people who say that they witnessed the massacre.

If you watch them, you will find that all of these 59 people had spontaneously and instantaneously formed the same impression of what was happening, and subsequently expressed it in identical terms: all of them thought that what they heard was “fireworks” or “firecrackers” and most of them used the words “pop-pop-pop” to describe the noise. There are a couple of facts to take into account.

First, these people were at an outdoor country music concert, and at such events the sound level is typically over 100dB, while the shooter was supposed to have been some 300m away, and the noise from the muzzle (150dB at close range) would have been attenuated by the distance to well below 100dB. Thus, the sound of the distant gunfire wouldn’t have stood out enough over the background noise to be instantly noticeable to everyone.

In addition to the endless variations on the theme of “Like firecrackers going off, pop-pop-pop!” we have numerous people spontaneously opining that “There was blood everywhere” and that “It was like a war zone”:

There was “blood everywhere” at Sunrise Hospital, a relatively modest Level II trauma center, which received 214 patients, approximately two-thirds of whom had suffered gunshot wounds. There, Renae Huening, a trauma nurse, followed “a trail of blood” from the parking lot to the hospital, where the overwhelming “[smell of] iron” accosted her senses. She soon found herself “slipping and sliding” in pools of blood until she was “covered” with it. Jacqueline Rodriguez, a nursing aid, raced to work to find “a trail of blood from the ambulance bay all the way in.” Dr. Dan Inglish was stunned by what he saw: “People were bleeding everywhere...” Jessica Weisberger, an 8-year veteran of the emergency room, struggled for words: “Everything seemed to be… either had blood or… I mean everywhere.” Dorita Sondereker, the Director of Emergency Services at Sunrise Hospital, recalled “blood everywhere, and honestly, I want to say bodies on stretchers everywhere.” Amber Ratto, a paramedic, reiterated that there was “blood just soaking the hallways, everywhere.” Dr. Michael Seiff observed “blood everywhere… blood all over the floor… the stench of blood and bodies whisking by in either direction on stretchers.” Jon Dimaya, a nurse, empathized with the housekeeping staff, which desperately tried to keep the flood of blood at bay: “I must have bumped into every one of them cleaning the floor every minute,” he remembered; “It was stained in blood the whole time.” Dr. Christopher Fisher described wounds that were “literally everywhere,” and a scene reminiscent of “a war zone...[with] blood in the hallways.” Technician Tom Kaiser was shocked by the “copious amounts of blood” while Dr. Allen McIntyre put it as plainly as he could: “There was blood everywhere.”
It was much the same at University Medical Center, which treated 104 patients. “There were blood trails from the ambulance bay into the hospital corridors and into the units; it was like a war zone,” said CEO Mason Van Houweling. “It was like a war zone,” offered Dr. Jay Coates, a senior trauma surgeon; “[There] was a trauma bay full of at least 70 people and patients stacked everywhere.” Robert Smith, a cardiovascular tech, confirmed the awful scene: “There was blood on the ground in the car park… trails of blood about 20 feet from the entrance.” Inside, Dr. Dale Carrison recalled an environment of “controlled chaos, a combat medical hospital… blood everyplace.”

Back at the site of the massacre, Jeff Buchanan, deputy fire chief for Clark County, could not believe “all the smatterings of blood, the blood footprints, the pooling of bodily fluids." Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, who toured the site on Monday, concurred that "there were bloodstains everywhere.” Nor did simply running away from the site allow one to avoid seeing lots of blood everywhere: Maria Beth Stanfeld retreated to MGM after seeing “blood on people’s clothes,” only to find that “they cut the elevator off because there was blood all over the elevator.” Taylor Winston, an ex-Marine attending the concert, decided to commandeer a vehicle to transport the wounded. After finding keys inside the first vehicle he checked, he went into action, evacuating 30 wounded to Desert Springs Hospital in just two trips. He later reflected: “It was overwhelming how much blood was everywhere.” Army veteran Rod Ledbetter likewise fell back on his training, but still struggled with what he saw: “There was blood everywhere: Excalibur, Luxor, on the Strip, on the street.” Tara Spangler, sitting in a restaurant across the street from Mandalay Bay, could see the panicked crowd coming toward her: “There was just blood everywhere, and it wasn't even their blood.”

Nikita Ronolo was standing next to a man who suffered a fatal headshot: “[He] just dropped to the floor, blood everywhere… and I had blood on my dress.” After witnessing a man take a round in the chin, Taylor Benge looked down and saw that: “My jeans are covered in someone’s blood, my t-shirt is covered in someone’s blood, my sister’s whole leg [is] covered in blood!” Sara Lake was shielded from the barrage of bullets by a complete stranger who was subsequently shot in the head: “I was covered in his blood,” Sara later recalled. Lani Langton saw “bloody people just everywhere… I just had a lot of other people’s blood over me, so people thought I was shot.” For veteran LAPD officer John Kline, the horror of the night brought to mind “a war zone...there were people covered in blood.” Bill Shermett, who survived the ordeal with his girlfriend, tried to convey the experience: “You see people shot everywhere, blood all over everyone. It's not like on TV. When you see people bleeding everywhere, this is some real shit!”

And so we have 28 people who saw “blood everywhere,” with a substantial number of them also opining that “it was like a war zone.” Some of these were bystanders who may have never seen any large quantity of blood, others medical professionals or combat veterans who have seen their share of it. And yet their impressions were identical, and couched in similar terms. How likely is it that all of these people simultaneously, instantaneously formed the same impression and expressed it in nearly identical terms? Also to keep in mind: gunshot wounds do not always bleed profusely, and they rarely bleed after the initial 10 minutes, because after that the nearby blood vessels constrict by spasm. Also, bleeding is by far the simplest effect of a gunshot injury to treat: all you have to do is apply direct pressure to entry end exit wounds—for about 10 minutes.

In addition to not particularly believable eyewitness testimony, there are also the not particularly believable official statistics. The final numbers, announced early the next day, came to exactly 59 dead and 527 wounded, and they haven't been updated since. Of the wounded, not a single person has subsequently died. It appears that the only two options were instant death or swift recovery. Large victim populations, such as this one, tend to form normal distributions: some die right away, some linger for a while; some make a fast recovery, some require multiple rounds of surgery, a few remain handicapped for life and a few more persist in a coma. A bimodal distribution such as the one we are being asked to believe is possible but extremely improbable.

In addition, we have some particularly preposterous bits of evidence: interviews with the wounded that are quite amusing, such as people who were supposedly shot through the lungs or with bullets lodged in their spines looking as fresh as daisies and cheerfully answering questions for the camera. And then there is this character, who was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos and said that his friend got shot in the chest three times. Apparently, Stephen Paddock was a superhuman rifleman. Think about it: he was 500m away and 32 floors up and yet he managed to hit a single person in the chest three times! Even a trained sniper coolly and carefully placing single shots would be very unlikely to achieve such a result. All three chest shots managed to miss all the vital organs, because here is the victim two days later, smiling and ready to return home to North Pole, Alaska. (Who writes this crap anyway?) If you will believe that Paddock hit somebody in the chest three times with automatic fire but failed to kill him, then you will probably believe anything! But perhaps most tellingly, if you watch the video, you will notice something called “duping delight”: The pleasure of being able to manipulate someone, often made visible to others by flashing a smile at an inappropriate moment. Also, all the sideways glances are “tells” that this person is lying. All it takes is one bad liar, and the entire house of cards starts to wobble.

The truth of this matter may never become known while speculations about it abound. Note, however, that I have refused to engage in speculative theorizing; instead, I chose to point out the obvious: what we are being asked to believe happened is so utterly unlikely that it deserves to be dismissed out of hand, along with everyone who dares to insult our intelligence in this manner. In the end, only one question remains: How gullible are you?

In case the answer is “extremely gullible,” I’ll throw in this gem: a video of a guy who got shot in the back of the head. The bullet went in under the scalp and came out after traveling under the skin for three inches. The back of his skull didn’t get shaved or taped up; apparently, it just instantly healed by itself. Nor was there any trauma to the skull or the brain alleged to have been installed therein. You better believe it!

Any military folks who have been on a "crack-thump: range or worked the target butts (or was shot at in action) KNOWS THAT THE SOUND of incoming smallarms fire IS A SHARP, WHIPLIKE CRACK FOLLOWED BY A THUMP. tHIS IS THE SONIC SHOCK WAVE FOLLOWED BY THE ACTUAL FIRING SOUND (THUMP)DELAYED BY THE SPEED OF SOUND BEING SLOWER THAN THE SUPERSONIC BULLET. tHERE IS NO CONFUSING this with the sounds as recorded by smartphones at the venue. I didn't hear any cracks that would indicate an actual projectile. Sounded more like a blank cartridge. Sorry about the Caps...hit the caplock accidentally.

I find it more unlikely that this is some sort of massive cover up. I’ve seen people after traumatic events before. They talk to each other and they repeat the same things over and over. “I just can’t believe it”. The narrive seems to coalesce on its own after people hear other people’s stories and those who are at a loss for words just repeat the words of others. It’s similar to chatter at a funeral. Everyone ends up having nearly the same thing to say.

My uncle is a Vietnam veteran (drafted and shot while there ) and he still cannot go to events with fireworks because they trigger his PTSD. Also I assume the music would stop when the band saw the audience starting to duck and scramble when they saw others start to get shot.

It could be that I’m too gullible but I’ve been in the military almost 2 decades and have seen enough (including participating in an information operations planning cell) to establish a rule of thumb is that if something that looks like a conspiracy can be explained by incompetence, disorganization, or “constructive interference” as I put it, it’s not a conspiracy.

Dimitry one cannot do anything but agree that something is awry here. My question though is how likely is the scenario that the shooting did in fact take place and some faction of gov't decided a good way to discredit another faction would be to make it look like the incident was staged? Might be a way for the deep state to invalidate the current administration or vice versa. I had no interest in this and just assumed it was real as it is a very difficult undertaking to convince so many to lie and not have it come out. Thanks for another great post.

Thanks to Mr Orlov i have discovered my problem with the news media. News is written metaphorical,or in a narrative style but I read it literally. The confusion in my mind is because I believe I am reading or viewing facts, when what I am really reading and seeing is a staged recreation. BTW after " the magic bullshit detector." I downloaded a book on metaphors and how they are used. I am starting to understand how the trick is done.

Thank you for this clear framework for thinking about incidents of this sort. In recent months I have converged upon the same strategy: not letting the credulous put the onus upon us for providing an explanation of "what really happened." It is enough to point out the many ways in which the official story simply does not pass the smell test.

This may be a duplicate submission. There were some glitches the first time around. I kept going from being, to not being, a robot.

From what I have seen and heard, here is how I would describe the Las Vegas shootings to someone.

Since the worst mass-shooting in U.S. history actually took place at Wounded Knee on December 29, 1890, when the U.S. government massacred some 200 to 300 unarmed men, women, and children, you have to ask yourself why is the MSM, and especially "The New York Times," being so fast and loose with the facts, and so quick to re-write history?

I keep thinking that some folks, as in “we shot some folks” came to Las Vegas at the same time that a gun show was scheduled to take place. These merchants in death passed themselves off as gun dealers just so nobody would know the difference.

Blending right in with the other gun crazies, they arrived locked and loaded, just before a gun show was set to take place, not looking suspicious at all. They probably broke into Paddock’s room (instant pansy), shot him in the head (instant patsy), making it look like suicide (just plain pathetic).

They proceeded to rain death from high above (and maybe eve down below), upon some Confederate linked, Country Music concert goers (because Hillary and her kind hate despicable Country Western music, and deplorable Country Western music lovers), especially all those gathered in an outdoor celebration, full of gun lovers, Trump lovers, Trump supporters and Trump voters.

The "New York Times" in typical fashion, wasted no time in calling Stephen Paddock – a 64-year-old, sleep deprived, under-employed, retiree, with no previous or prior criminal record, no history of violence, and no military training; who apparently, upon initial investigation, has done nothing but mind his own business his whole life – the “New York Times” calls Stephen Paddock a troubled loser, a loner, a gambler (this is after all Las Vegas), a malcontent, a "cipher" (which is just a more educated way of calling somebody a big fat zero.) More to come.

Still, just one man, this same Stephen Paddock, managed to carry out a professional military operation of such scope and such intensity and with such success as to make any Delta Force veteran proud, any Seal Team member salute, any Special Ops person cream their Kelvar pants.

God only knows what our “we killed some folks” thought.

The true test of my theory would be to nuke the swamp and the Utah Data Center in Utah. My feeling is that these mass-shootings would stop the same day. The other proof of my theory would be if all the mass-shooters would concentrate their activities and their fire against their true tormentors in Washington, DC.

What I find so hard to understand about this event is the fact that everything coming out of the authorities looks chaotic and disorganized. When you look at other events that we now know were false flags, like the Boston bombing, the authorities had a narrative that they pushed from the very beginning. Within hours they had photos of the "suspects" (the Tsarnaev brothers). Following 9/11, within hours the government was releasing not only a narrative (that they still push) but a list of all 19 supposed hijacker's names. Within a few days they had even "miraculously" found the passport of one of the hijackers laying on a Manhattan street!

I don't get that feel from this event. Clearly the people behind this attack did not coordinate a narrative with the government/media folks who are trying to explain what happened. What is the truth? We can't really know at this point, but as Mr. Orlov has pointed out, we can be sure that the truth is NOT what we are being told by the establishment.

I have serious reservations about the official story about the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001. Whenever I bring it up, people treat me as a pariah. The same people have doubts about the veracity of the Warren Commission, know that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was founded on a lie, and watched us go into Iraq based on more lies. The fact that no examination was made of the steel structure of the only tall building to completely collapse by fire does not even raise questions.

I spent half my working life as a Vocational Trained Hospital Nurse [RN.UK]. I worked in ER units and post surgical High Dependency Units during those years.There were two things that struck me about this. 1. As Dmitry pointed out, when people are badly wounded as from a gunshot, you actually dont get a huge amount of blood. Partly the bullet blocks the wound, forming a plug. Partly, as Dmitry said, the blood vessels begin to spasm and contract down, and after few minutes the severe drop in blood pressure stops the bleeding, as there is no pressure to keep the fluid moving. 2. People who work in trauma get used to seeing blood. It's par for the course, it goes with the territory. No nurse or doctor or surgeon would keep commenting on how there was "so much blood" [although, as pointed out, there would be very little blood]. If there had been, no nurse or doctor would even much notice. It's just part of your job. 3. I also once did a course in Security work. As part of it, the trainer - an ex Security, Martial Arts specialist who had worked for some big government outfits [in Australia] showed us photo's from post crime scenes of gunshot people, both from suicide and homicide. Several were shot in the head. One, there was a patch of blood about 2 ft x 1.5 ft behind the head. Another, the gunshot had been to the womans' face. Her face was missing and her brain scooped completely out of her cranium, lying on the bed beside her knee. There were a few tiny specks of blood on her face - and that was all. Consider here, that the head has the biggest blood supply and skin wounds to the head pour blood in copious amounts!!

In addition, in training in hospitals for how to handle various attack scenarios, the one thing impressed on us by police of senior levels is to write everything down as soon as possible after the event. The reason is that we all filter what we see and hear through the lens of our perceptions, and a couple of people present at the same event will record things differently. Moreover we never do remember everything. A problem for investigators is trying to find some correlation between the different accounts after an event by people who all were present at the same time. Yet here, everyone was saying almost exactly the same thing. That is too much like people repeated a memorised script!!

We also should always remember that the term "conspiracy theorist" as a term of disparagement was in fact dreamed up by the CIA after the Kennedy killing, to try and stop the storm of cynicism about the "authorised version".

Finally - we have a past history of American rulers getting up to God knows what crap in order to manipulate the easily manipulated average American mind. So - it's not as if on past history alone it is inconceivable that they would do some thing like stage an event like this. Dmitry is correct, that there are numerous aspects here which just dont add up.

If there is something fishy about that shooting incident, I sure don't see the actual shooting as being questionable. Another shooter or shooters, maybe. Others behind the scenes to assist, maybe. To suggest that the incident is fake is more of a stretch than that it was somehow not a real shooting

my reaction to much of what appears on TV, movies and other media is, how stupid do we have to be to swallow this stuff. I am guessing that wittingly or unwittingly, the entertainment industry puts out a constant stream of improbable stuff such as superhero movies or action movies, which become for a lot of people their idea of how reality works. These movies require a good deal of suspension of disbelief if one is to engage with them. The entertainment media become in effect a constant barrage of brainwashing that trains viewers to suspend disbelief. In the end, disbelief is turned off for good. If we agree with Marshall McLuhan that the medium is the message, then when we watch what is called news, the medium being what matters, we automatically suspend disbelief regardless of how unbelievable the content should be to anyone with healthy critical faculties.And so, we believe that we will soon be driving electric cars on Mars.Little aside for a joke by Bill Maher. Budweiser is trying to figure out how to make beer on Mars. Maher suggests that they first should figure out how to make beer here on earth.end of joke.

your post was very informative and especcially the reply from Isabella who confirmed what you said about shotwounds. My own experience with relatives is that it is often to much for them to accept that government and media is not this trustworthy instance they thought it was, so they refuse to accept the hard facts. I compare it to when a woman is told by her friends that her husband has been cheating on her. If the facts undermine your security, the brain refuses to accept the facts.

Just to play devils advocate, if all the attendees had had varied stories, that would have been "evidence" that it was staged too. Lots of friends in Las Vegas and they certainly think people were shot at a concert. I may not trust the media, but I do trust my friends.

Everybody knows that everybody can be fooled, in the right circumstances, often enough.

Me, if the US media said an object had fallen downward in the presence of 1000 (alleged) witnesses, I would have to wonder if someone had invented antigravity. But there would be still a possibility that this time they'd had no reason to lie.

Did They need more mental chaff in the air that day? Hey, there's always the daily tweet.

It's also clear that people (especially if you push a mike in their faces on-camera) will probably access a convenient verbal description better than concrete memories.

Was this military ammunition, or possibly some ugly civilian stuff designed to cause more injury and bleeding?

A news show is, after all, a show, and people do perform as expected. Were the Aegean waters of Homer's day always wine-dark, the dawns always rosy-fingered? Once people have a good cliche, they use it. Even experience it. Likely the widespread practice of texting has made this tendency even more common.

I was in Vegas during the shooting to visit family, but I was no where near the action. Though I am not very knowledgeable about modern fire arms I had a hard time believing that somebody that far away could cause so much havoc in the dark with that kind of a rifle. Perhaps they can, but it still makes me scratch my head.

The following day the news media was looking for motive and almost the first "official" to venture a guess said he could not believe that Paddock acted alone. This "official" had experience to support his belief, so it suggests to me that "officials" involved with this event also think it was well planned and considered. I would have thought that for a single shooter, shooting up the casino or one of the shows would have netted as much chaos and notoriety with less planning necessary.

I can also see how this could be a blow in a class war considering the shooter and his target, but it is hard to see who profits by this kind of mass killing, not that there isn't someone who does. I can also see that Paddock could have been someone's cat's paw. There could be many choices for that, the deep state, FBI, CIA, ISIS. ISIS was said to have claimed responsibility right away and they could have paid Paddock to do the deed and advised him. He didn't need to be a Moslem convert for something like that. ISIS doesn't even have be be involved to keep things stirred up here by making such a claim. How much easier to have Americans crazy fearful of their gun owning neighbors or of being out in public, a target for ISIS killers, the better to be manipulated by someone who would find that useful.

Let me say that I too am deeply troubled by this event, whether staged or not. And even if not staged, there are still plenty of possibilities other than the crazed, lone gunman hypothesis.

Nonetheless, Dmitry, what you can always count on in America: the gun people are going to buy more guns, and the gun manufacturers are going to sell more.

Please, this is not a debate on the second amendment or the right to own guns. I am talking about the proliferation of guns across America, which makes it a dangerous country, and one which is thus easily exploited by the powers that be. As easily as if nobody had guns at all.

The average American man can't understand this. He thinks as long as he has his mcmansion mortgage, pickup truck payment, and guns and ammo, he is "free".

I haven't watched a lot of coverage of this but what I have gives me serious pause. There are lots of shots of the crowd at the concert and in the chaos afterwards. But I didn't see anything that could be described as "blood everywhere," or "looks like a war zone." Maybe they shied away from shooting the gory stuff or maybe there wasn't much there. (I am not saying no one was killed. I'm pretty sure some lambs were.)Motive is not so obvious but one stuck out for me. Apparently CEO of Mandalay Bay has a deep pocket interest in scatterback x-ray security machines and ties to Homeland Security. Could we see a spike in sales at say casinos and other public venues. Make tons of money and keep people scared as shit. What's not to like about that if you're an oligarch?

I live in Europe and we had one event close to my home in Brussels at the airport.I have seen on the news that the building indeed suffered a lot of damage from the explosions, but for in stance the Manchester Ariane Grande nor this event has "ANY" picture of blood, wounded or dead persons or damage accept for "2" shattered windows.I hear that some people have been in Vegas around that time. If 50 people got killed and 200 injured i would guess a lot of bullets would have hit buildings or windows. WOuld have been convenient if somebodu thrustworthy would have gone to the scene and film the environment to checq if bullet holes are everywhere and film this evidence and maybe a lot of blood stains as blood is difficult to remove especially on concrete or asfalt.

You mention "incompetent" people giving the "eyewitnesses" the same implausible stories to tell. In fact, false-flag analyst, Ole Dammegard, has said that insiders have told him that the power elite justify their hoaxing of us by TELLING us what they're doing by not making these events particularly realistic. Their justification is that if we're too stupid to pick it up it's our own fault. That's why at Sandy Hook one of the alleged fathers of a child who died, David Wheeler, who is actually an actor in real life, played both the role of father and FBI agent. You do not have someone play two roles if you want to make it as realistic as possible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re3OnSVEWok. Not to mention that when Wheeler is acting as the FBI agent he doesn't carry his gun properly. Debunkers say that the FBI agent is not Wheeler but, in fact, FBI agent Bill Aldenberg. You decide. https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2015-12-28_10-6-1-png.16873/

All I ask for is any evidence that does not fit with "staged event" of injured or dead. Surely, that is not too much to ask. Especially, when there's so much purported evidence that seems to only fit "staged event". How's this guy and his girlfriend? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEL4vsT6VA.

And then we have these two predictions of the event:* On 16 Sep YouTuber Anaconda Malt Liquor predicted the event from "Las Vegas" written on the track pants of a woman at the Freeman High School shooting hoax (he says he's doing an "Ole Dammegard" - Ole was the first, I believe, to notice signs from one event to another). The power elite love their signs and symbols. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nph4oueARA

* Video bookmarked to discussion about a series of posts on 4Chan, the first of which appeared a second before Sep 11, about a possible event in Las Vegas claiming that Michael Chertoff et al will profit from all the extra securitisation that will be installed as a result of this “high incident project” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNqxUuyHFzc&feature=youtu.be&t=3m10s

I have a website, Occam's Razor on Terror Events. I have produced a 10-point Occam's Razor exercise favouring "independent researcher" hypothesis over "official story" hypothesis for 3 events: Collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11, Sandy Hook massacre, Manchester Bombing and I am offering $5,000 to the first person who can produce a similar exercise with the favouring of hypotheses reversed ... and I've made the judging rules open to discussion! No one has even ATTEMPTED the challenge so far. http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

What people need to let go of is "how many people would need to be involved". Probably the number of people is fewer than it seems, however, what counts is the EVIDENCE not probability or improbability of number of people. What is happening now with the fake terror that we're being swamped in reminds me so much of the Holocaust. Hitler said, "When you tell a lie tell a whopper - people will recognise small lies so will disbelieve them but the audacity of a massive lie is beyond their comprehension." Just as happened in Nazi Germany, people find it TABOO to even entertain the idea that their rulers are committing State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs) - crimes against their own citizens - https://www.globalresearch.ca/state-crimes-against-democracy/17922. They find it too scary to even contemplate. But all that needs to be done is exactly that. Entertain the idea, TALK ABOUT THEM AND EXPOSE THEM - nothing more. And obviously you need to understand WHY they're swamping us in fake terror. It's explained on my website on the What, Why, How page.

While everyone is going nuts over Las Vegas and a few other false-flag hoaxes little old nobody me in the Western Suburbs of Sydney wondered if the Mogadishu Truck Bombing was also a hoax so I just had a little look at the images. Of course, there was a real bombing, unlike in Manchester, but no sign of any injury commensurate with a blast that killed an ever rising number of people. And like Las Vegas, you can see evidence of faking evidence. Another false-flag hoax. It just goes on and on.

If you look at the images at Mogadishu you will not see a single image showing anyone's body compromised: an impossibility in such an horrific event. What you will see is this:

* The back of a person who looks as if they have pigmentation issues. The back is bandaged as if to suggest burn injuries but it is clear there are no burn injuries and that the failure of the bandages to reach the edges of the pigmentation anomaly is designed to suggest that there really were burns.https://www.yahoo.com/news/deadly-truck-bombing-mogadishu-somalia-slideshow-wp-191831889/photo-p-critically-wounded-men-wait-photo-160031852.html

* This person has no feet but, just like at Boston Bombing, she looks like an amputee.http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/mogadishui-truck-bomb-02-ap-rc-171016_4x3_992.jpg

Why is this guy being carried and carried in this way?https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/wpid-article-1317751576934-0e37f2af00000578-975643_466x310.jpg

And we have the Masonic shoe! Shoes appear, generally, in all these events. Plenty at Charlottesville.https://firenewsfeed.com/incident/601084

Good post Petra. On the "number of people involved" meme, there is a corollary point which is so what? Because who are they going to tell anyway? Somebody's gonna walk into the NYT or Wapo and be taken seriously? Better still they'd by turned in. Even when people such as E. Howard Hunt did confess to taking part in the JFK assassination, it's ignored or passed off as crazy. And you're right they know we know and are fine with that. It's a nice FU for them. Michael Morrissey wrote a book about 9/11 The Transparent Conspiracy saying the same thing. They knew many people would figure it out--they made it easy. It's a measure of their power that they can get so many to go along with it. Ariana Grande concert, Las Ramblas, Paris truck terrorist, no bodies, no blood, nada except people running and it's easy to get them to do that.

I also believe this was a partial hoax. I am with @Jeff Lovejoy on this. The reported target and the people who most probably perpetrated the event, given the resources required, these people would not pass up the opportunity to assassinate troublesome law enforcement officials in the American southwest, having sympathies for Trump.

After looking at the Marathon bombing, my impression was a mixed sort of relief that paramilitary operations in the United States were now moving to a purely psychological frame. Thinking that atrocities like that of 9/11, where bodies most assuredly did hit the ground, were now eschewed in favor of staged events taking advantage of the full spectrum dominance of the media. But I understand also one or two key people were killed in the aftermath of the Marathon bombing.

A shallow-cover event like this one is full of tip-offs to flush out those prone to critical thinking and discussion of their views. My first experience of dissonance in learning of this event was listening to a witness account on NPR, who said that the array of bodies "looked fake". The existence of such dissonance makes it impossible to simply apply Occam's razor. Counter-forensics is of course at play. Surely many birds are killed with this important of an operation. Not least of which is the confusion sowed and emotional combativeness generated trying to gain consensus in the face of contradictory evidence. The other is the position of the gun rights supporters, which is surely weakened as zero-hour coverage focused its accusations on this artifact of the American bill of rights, while dismissing the supposed shooter as one of the victims.